[U, X3] All Eyes Will Be On The Federal (Trial Level) Courthouses -- In San Diego, And Los Angeles, California: The Cheeto-lini Had His A$$ Handed To Him, Overnight.

UPDATE No. 3 @ 1 PM EDT: I will make Chad Readler's list of pathetic and unconsionable excuses -- for violating a US District Court's order (a 10 page PDF) -- a new post in a few minutes. See above, soon -- but this is truly. . . despicable. The Trumpers are taking an exceedingly clear order to reunite, today -- and turning it into a gauntlet, which anxious parents (most of whom speak little or no English) must weave and bob their way through -- in order to get access to their own children. Trump = Nazi. There I said it. Onward. New post now up shortly.

We have our FIRST UPDATE (@ 10 AM EDT): I am still reviewing this just filed 24 page PDF (a joint status report of sorts, on where the two sides are in the disputes about whether 45 is complying with the court orders, as of today). The 24 pager sets forth only a few AGREED proposed reunification and release protocols, which should occur later today. It still needs almost all substantive issues to be a few issues ironed out by Judge Sabraw, since the government is trying to force more restrictive conditions onto the people it chose to violently separate from their parents (all in violation of existing law, called the Flores consent agreement). See, viz -- at page 11:

". . .The Government wants parents -- whose children were unlawfully taken from them -- to fill out long paper applications and identify other caregivers for them before it returns their children. The TVPRA was not intended to inhibit family reunification -- in fact, just the opposite. The Government cannot use it as a sword to prohibit or delay reunification by throwing up such needless bureaucratic roadblocks. . . ."

You may read along with me as I analyze it. As we said below, though, it is clear that Trump's people have failed, in many cases, to get done what they were ordered to do, nearly two weeks ago. And (UPDATE No. 2) here is the notice of right to sue the US, the plaintiffs propose should be sent to all border detainees. The Trump version is noted as revision marks. End, first and second updates.

In the Ms. L. case, in San Diego, before the able Judge Sabraw -- there are three separate compelled hearings / updates today alone. These center on why -- and whether (though it is now known that likely 40 or so kids will not be reunited, on time, by the government -- in direct violation of a standing federal court order) -- the government has almost certainly failed to meet today's deadline.

That deadline was for the reunification, of the 105 [or so, as it seems Trump's government didn't bother to keep an accurate track(!)] migrant children under 5 years of age, with their biological migrant parents. [Baby Agent Orange was just positively too busy -- staging a reality TV style Supreme Court "reveal" / theater of the absurd, it seems. . . . His tweet about "flood alert -- crying rivers" was completely unbecoming of the office he tenuously holds.]

Meanwhile, up north, in Los Angeles(!), the able Judge Dolly Gee has ruled that the government's position is "wholly without merit" -- essentially gutting all of the Cheeto-lini's latest executive order. Just as we predicted, last month: Flores is -- and remains -- the controlling law of the land, on ALL these matters. Here's some of the seven page overnight order (and a full PDF of it):

. . . .Defendants’ Ex Parte Application is a thinly veiled motion for reconsideration without any meaningful effort to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7-18. On July 24, 2015, the Court denied Defendants’ motion seeking to modify the Flores Agreement on the same grounds now raised anew in Defendants’ Ex Parte Application. See Defs.’ Motion to Amend at 13, 17–21, 27–28, 30–33 [Doc. # 120]; July 24, 2015 Order at 19–25 [Doc. # 177]; Ex Parte Appl. at 15–16 [Doc. # 435-1 (repeating Defendants’ position that detaining family units in unlicensed family residential facilities deters others from unlawfully entering the country). In short, Defendants have run afoul of Local Rule 7-18 because the Ex Parte Application “repeat[s] . . . oral or written argument made in support of” the earlier Motion to Amend. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18.

Even if Local Rule 7-18 did not bar Defendants’ Ex Parte Application, it would still fail under a Rule 60(b) analysis. The Court’s July 24, 2015 Order analyzed in great detail the relevant Flores Agreement language and applicable legal authorities, responding to the same issues raised in Defendants’ current Ex Parte Application. In the absence of a showing of changed circumstances that the parties could not have foreseen at the time of their Agreement, it is unnecessary to replow the same familiar territory. . . .

[T]he Flores Agreement has required accompanied minors to be placed in licensed facilities since 1997. See Flores Agreement at ¶ 19 [Doc. # 101]. Defendants did not request an alteration of their legal obligations until many years later in 2015 and again now. The Court’s July 24, 2015 Order merely reaffirmed Defendants’ pre-existing obligations under the Agreement, and could not have caused the surge in border crossings any more than the implementation of the Flores Agreement itself caused the numerous surges that occurred after 1997. . . .

Absolutely nothing prevents Defendants from reconsidering their current blanket policy of family detention and reinstating prosecutorial discretion. See Exec. Order No. 13841, 83 Fed. Reg. at 29435; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A). . . .

It is apparent that Defendants’ Application is a cynical attempt, on an ex parte basis, to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate. The parties voluntarily agreed to the terms of the Flores Agreement more than two decades ago. The Court did not force the parties into the agreement nor did it draft the contractual language. Its role is merely to interpret and enforce the clear and unambiguous language to which the parties agreed, applying well established principles of law. Regardless, what is certain is that the children who are the beneficiaries of the Flores Agreement’s protections and who are now in Defendants’ custody are blameless. They are subject to the decisions made by adults over whom they have no control. In implementing the Agreement, their best interests should be paramount. . . .

Of course, the pumpkin patch kid will appeal to the Ninth Circuit, where he will. . . again lose. This (along with Roe v. Wade) is why the Supreme Court nomination looms so very large. Do go out and resist.

Onward, now at luminous dawn -- with more hearings to prep for here, by tomorrow. Note: I'll be largely off-grid, from about Thursday -- through next Tuesday, up north. Fun northern Wisconsin lake adventures, and half-Irons. . . along lovely Ellison Bay, at mid-summer -- just like this weekend, last summer.

नमस्ते